Undercover police operatives posing as criminals are not 'persons in authority' for the purposes of the common law inducement rule, because the concept requires that the offeror of the inducement, from the perspective of the confessionalist, possesses lawfully held or conferred authority — not merely criminal capacity to influence events. Evidence of an accused's participation in purported criminal activities arranged by undercover police ('scenario evidence') constitutes propensity evidence under s 398A of the Crimes Act 1958 (Vic), and the jury must be directed that such evidence is admitted solely to establish the context of the confession and must not be used for propensity reasoning. The status of Wong Kam-Ming v R regarding cross-examination on the voir dire as to the truth of a confession remains an open question in Victoria.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 14 later cases that cite this judgment.
5 of the 14 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.